[WSIS CS-Plenary] FW: News: Calm before the storm as UN summit approaches?

[Renata Bloem]

FYI
Best
Renata

-----Original Message-----
From: BTS eForum [mailto:break-the-silence at eforums.healthdev.org] 
Sent: lundi, 12. septembre 2005 13:00
To: rbloem at iprolink.ch
Subject: [break-the-silence] News: Calm before the storm as UN summit
approaches?

News: Calm before the storm as UN summit approaches?
****************************************************

Moderators’ note: With no significant announcements or last-minute
breakthroughs in negotiations around the UN 2005 World Summit ‘outcomes
document’, the atmosphere going into this weeks meeting – the largest
gathering of heads of state, ever – is unquestionably guarded.

According to media stories late last week, the UK government was called in
by the UN Secretary General to try to gain some last-minute ground. Here is
how two leading UK newspapers saw the situation over the weekend:

Mods.


1. UN fears an unhappy birthday as rows threaten summit (The Independent)
2. World summit on UN's future heads for chaos (The Guardian)


1. UN fears an unhappy birthday as rows threaten summit
The Independent (UK)
********************

(12 September 2005)

The UN aimed to mark its 60th anniversary with deep reforms. Instead, rows
overshadow this week's huge gathering of world leaders.


Negotiations at the United Nations on a draft blueprint for the most
sweeping reforms in UN history reached fever pitch over the weekend as the
global organisation prepares for one of its most significant, and fraught,
summits.

In two days' time, the biggest-ever gathering of world leaders will take
place in New York to mark the UN's 60th birthday. Not only is the final
declaration of the 175 leaders still being discussed, there are major
differences remaining to be bridged.

With the talks going down to the wire on such issues as human rights, UN
management reforms and terrorism, the summit is in danger of becoming a
global fiasco rather than ushering in a new era of reform. The question now
is: will the 191-member organisation be found wanting amid calls for reform
that it can no longer ignore?

The signs are not encouraging. In an exclusive interview with The
Independent, the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, spoke openly of the
possibility of failure at the most critical time of his own career.
Describing the US approach of line-by-line negotiations as "a recipe for
disaster", he has had to intervene personally to save the summit from
collapse by persuading the Bush administration to drop its objections to the
declaration's central commitment on global aid. Yet even this may not be
enough.

If agreement is reached on the document, it would be in effect a "grand
bargain" between rich nations and developing states. The West would provide
economic support in return for guarantees on good governance and respect for
human rights from the developing world as well as their backing of UN
management reforms.

Britain, and the EU as a whole, back the original package and the [UK]
Government has taken the lead in trying to preserve it. The British
ambassador, Emyr Parry Jones, one of the main negotiators, has warned,
however, that the management reforms are "an essential part of the package.
Without it, that package will be very substantially diminished."

The issue of management reform appeared last night to be the deal-breaker on
which there had been least progress, with developing countries resisting the
proposed shift to place the UN chief in charge of management, rather than
the 191-nation General Assembly which has traditionally braked reform.

One of the main questions in the negotiating room concerns the intentions of
the US delegation, with the French specifically raising the issue. There
have been widespread fears since the appointment of John Bolton as US
ambassador that he has been dispatched to the UN to sabotage the summit. The
sudden tabling of 750 US amendments to the draft declaration did nothing to
assuage those fears.

Non-governmental organisations sounded the alarm about a possible collapse
of the negotiations last week after Mr Bolton called a number of UN missions
to say: "I don't want give and take. If we disagree, we disagree." That held
echoes of his earlier negotiating record as chief US arms control officer,
when he was quoted as saying: "I don't do carrots."

Mr Annan says he had staked his reputation on saving the document's
commitments to the UN Millennium Development Goals, which set 2015 as the
target for cutting world poverty by half, ensuring primary education for all
and stemming the AIDS pandemic. He put in a call to the US Secretary of
State, Condoleezza Rice, and the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, last
Tuesday. His conference call, on the way back to New York from London was
prompted by the widespread alarm, particularly among developing nations, at
the systematic US amendments that sought to eliminate all references to the
Millennium Goals, including a commitment for rich nations to earmark 0.7 per
cent of GNP for development aid. At that point, this was the deal-breaker.

"Quite frankly, I think this is one of the major achievements of the UN,
that for the first time that I can remember, we have a common framework for
development which is accepted by all governments, developed and developing,
accepted by civil society and the average man and woman in the street. And
the financial institutions and the UN agencies are all behind it," Mr Annan
said. "It's an important tool in our attempts to propel us forward in our
attempts to eliminate poverty and I don't think we should fiddle with it."

Later that day, Mr Bolton announced to his fellow ambassadors that the US
would reverse its position on the Millennium Development Goals.

Mr Annan would suffer a major personal setback if the summit fails to
deliver management reform, only a week after he was publicly castigated by
an independent investigation into the oil-for-food corruption scandal for
his mismanagement that allowed Saddam Hussein to rake in more than $10bn
(£5.4bn). Although ruling out resignation, he has accepted responsibility
for the failings detailed in the probe led by the former chairman of the US
Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, which concluded that a chief administrator
should be appointed without delay to prevent future corruption.

Mr Annan has much riding on a successful outcome. But he can only work
behind the scenes in order to achieve it. This is because the final document
is the work of the UN member states - even though it is based on a report
written by himself. They have already ignored his appeals to agree on
proposals to enlarge the UN Security Council: a new deadline has been set
for December, as nobody has hopes of progress during the summit.

Because of the failure to agree on the Security Council, Japan, which had
hoped to become a permanent member, is threatening to cut its UN
contributions in retaliation. Diplomats say that the entire negotiating
process has become a confusing flux of changing coalitions.

Mr Annan says he has warned the US he will not accept blame in case the
summit fails. "I've also told them they're going to take the blame for
failure when all the heads of state come in. They are the host. You cannot
be a host and destroy the party," he said.

The issues at stake

 - Development

UN PROPOSAL: Restate global commitment to Millennium Goals on poverty,
education and Aids.

WHO'S FOR/AGAINST: US was almost alone in opposition, but came round after
pressure from Kofi Annan.

EXPECTED OUTCOME: Agreement. But watch out for loopholes that could give US
wriggle room

 - Human rights council

UN PROPOSAL: Leaner version of the discredited UN Human Rights Commission,
to sit all year round.

WHO'S FOR/AGAINST: Backed by Western nations who want a genuine commitment
to human rights.

EXPECTED OUTCOME: Probable agreement

 - Responsibility to protect

UN PROPOSAL: Endorsement of Canadian initiative to prevent genocide and
humanitarian abuse.

WHO'S FOR/AGAINST: Western powers in favour. Opposed by Russia, India,
Pakistan, Cuba and Venezuela.

EXPECTED OUTCOME: Probable agreement

 - Non-proliferation

UN PROPOSAL: Warning that greatest threat to peace comes from proliferation.

WHO'S FOR/AGAINST: Stand-off between nuclear and non-nuclear states.

EXPECTED OUTCOME: No agreement unless a balance can be found between
disarmament and non-proliferation

 - Terrorism

UN PROPOSAL: First definition of terrorism which would say killing of
civilians is always unacceptable.

WHO'S FOR/AGAINST: West in favour. Islamic nations say right to resist
foreign occupation would be curbed.

EXPECTED OUTCOME: Definition not agreed. Hopes for resolution to pressure
states to discourage incitement

 - Peace-building commission

UN PROPOSAL: New body to help nations emerging from conflict.

WHO'S FOR/AGAINST: West wants Security Council control. Developing nations
want commission to report to General Assembly.

EXPECTED OUTCOME: Agreement

 - Management reform

UN PROPOSAL: Shift in management responsibility from General Assembly to UN
secretary general.

WHO'S FOR/AGAINST: Western nations in favour. Developing nations fear loss
of control by General Assembly.

EXPECTED OUTCOME: A deal breaker. Possibly no agreement

(By Anne Penketh)

[Source: http://news.independent.co.uk]


2. World summit on UN's future heads for chaos
The Guardian
************

UK leads last minute effort to rein in US objections

September 10, 2005

The British government is mounting a huge diplomatic effort this weekend to
prevent the biggest-ever summit of world leaders, designed to tackle poverty
and overhaul the United Nations, ending in chaos.

The Guardian has learned that Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, has made a
personal plea to his American counterpart, Condoleezza Rice, for the US to
withdraw opposition to plans for wholesale reform of the UN. He has asked Ms
Rice to rein in John Bolton, the US ambassador to the world body.

Mr Bolton has thrown the reform negotiations into disarray by demanding a
catalogue of late changes to a 40-page draft document which is due to go
before the summit in New York on Wednesday.

Mr Bolton, one of the US administration hawks, became ambassador last month
only after a long confrontation with the US senate, mainly caused by his
ideological dislike of the UN.

The foreign secretary is planning to make calls to fellow ministers around
the world over the weekend.

Mr Straw spoke to Ms Rice in a three-way conference call last Tuesday
organised by Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, to try to break the
deadlock.

Mr Annan has been weakened by the criticisms voiced this week by an inquiry
into the UN's running of the Iraq oil-for-food programme and needs a
successful summit to avoid renewed calls for his resignation.

The British government, in a rare divergence from the US, is fully behind Mr
Annan's reforms and fears the summit will fail to build on the agreements on
aid reached at the G8 summit at Gleneagles.

Aid agencies and other international groups monitoring the talks expressed
fears yesterday that ambitious goals on aid, protection of civilians and
curbs on the arms trade will be lost.

Nicola Reindrop, head of the New York office of Oxfam International, said:
"Negotiations are on the verge of collapse."

A representative of another group, at a lunch with Mr Annan on Thursday,
described the negotiations as "imploding".

Ambassadors at the 191-member UN remained divided last night, three days
after the deadline for completion of the draft document had passed. Talks
will continue over the weekend. Monday has been set as the new deadline.

The summit, to which 175 world leaders have accepted invitations and which
has been in the planning for more than a year, is billed as making the UN
fit for the 21st century.

The three-day summit begins on Wednesday, with each leader allocated five
minutes at the podium, a minimum of 14 hours of speeches. But the real
diplomacy will take place behind the scenes.

The summit document is due to be unveiled next Friday. Proposals include:

 - meeting the millennium development goals that would halve poverty by 2015
and make sure everyone has access to primary education;

 - setting up a peace-building commission to help with post-conflict
reconstruction;

 - creating a human rights council;

 - introducing a responsibility to protect citizens from genocide, much
tougher than existing international obligations;

 - imposing curbs on the arms trade;

 - reforming the UN bureaucracy, particularly after the oil-for-food
scandal;

 - defining "terrorism".

But there are still more than 200 points of disagreement in the document.

Although the US has emerged as the leading opponent of the reform package,
objections have also been lodged by some governments from the Non-Aligned
Movement, which represents much of the developing world.

Ricardo Alarcon, speaker of the Cuban parliament, whose hopes of attending
the summit along with President Fidel Castro were dashed when he was denied
a visa by the US, said in Havana the summit "has been totally devalued, its
original purpose kidnapped".


Although there has been little movement over the last few days, the mood in
New York among diplomats was marginally more optimistic yesterday.

Mr Bolton has so far made only one significant concession, dropping his
demand for the term "millennium development goals" to be deleted.

But Mr Bolton said the US will not renew a promise to pay 0.7% of gross
domestic product towards aid, regarded as necessary for meeting the
millennium development goals.

Controls on arms is likely to be dropped. But agreement is almost certain on
creation of the human rights council. A deal could be reached on the
peace-building commission, in spite of disagreements over who should run it.

There is a divide over the definition of terrorism, with pro-Palestinian
states objecting that the proposed terminology be amended to exclude
Palestinian fighters.

The most significant reform, expansion of the 15-member security council to
about 25 members, has been shelved until at least December.

(By Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor)

[Source: www.guardian.co.uk]

---------
Stay Connected - Speak your world!

A posting from: Keep the Promise: Start Making Sense! 
An initiative of the civil society-led World AIDS Campaign
(www.worldaidscampaign.org) in collaboration with Health & Development
Networks (www.hdnet.org)

To submit a posting, send to break-the-silence at eforums.healthdev.org 
For anonymous postings, add the word "anon" to the subject line 
To join, send a blank message to
join-break-the-silence at eforums.healthdev.org
To leave, send a blank email to
leave-break-the-silence at eforums.healthdev.org

To read archives and further information, go to:
http://www.healthdev.org/eforums/break-the-silence

You are currently subscribed to Break-the-Silence as: rbloem at iprolink.ch

---------

Break-the-silence (BTS) is an international eForum on HIV/AIDS, health and
development policy and advocacy issues. 

BTS is coordinated by the Health & Development Networks eForums Team (HDN,
www.hdnet.org) with the support of Development Cooperation Ireland (DCI,
www.dci.gov.ie).

The views expressed in this forum do not necessarily reflect those of the
World AIDS Campaign, HDN or DCI.

Reproduction welcomed provided HDN is informed of usage and source is cited
as follows: Break-the-Silence eForum 2005:
break-the-silence at eforums.healthdev.org